Japan kicks US troops out

[vector7]

Japan threatens to kick out US troops

Japan is threatening to ask US troops based on the island of Okinawa to leave the country amid growing resentment over crime.

By Julian Ryall in Tokyo
Published: 6:11PM BST 07 Oct 2009

The new government is reviewing an agreement with Washington on US military facilities following through on a campaign pledge to islanders who have borne the brunt of the American presence for more than 60 years.

Around 50,000 American troops are based in Japan, around two-thirds of the total are in Okinawa. Resentment against their presence has grown in recent years due to a series of crimes committed by service personnel.

Related Articles

• Japanese school textbooks accused of rewriting wartime history
• Afghanistan: Gordon Brown criticised after the death of eight soldiers
• Chinese boats fear naval clash between North and South Korea
• Taiwan trip cancelled amid anger

Many of the crimes are relatively trivial, but other cases have brought tens of thousands of protesters onto the streets. In February 2008, a case against a marine accused of raping a girl aged 14 was dropped after she withdrew the accusation, apparently to avoid the ordeal of a trial.



The case revived bitter memories of the abduction and rape of a 12-year-old schoolgirl in 1995 by three US servicemen.

Katsuya Okada, the foreign minister, said he wants the American military to remain in Japan but that the concentration on Japan's most southerly islands needed to be reduced.

"The only way this presence can be sustained in the long term is to make sure that the burden on the Okinawans is decreased in some way," he said. "Only by accomplishing these goals will we be able to ensure that the US-Japan alliance will be sustainable."

Another long-standing complaint against the US forces is pollution and the noise their aircraft make during practice flights, particularly at bases that are in the most densely populated parts of the island.

The most seriously affected municipality is Ginowan, which surrounds the Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station.

The previous Japanese government had reached an agreement with Washington to transfer 8,000 Marines and their dependants to the Pacific island of Guam by 2012, close the Futenma facility and transfer its functions to an enlarged US base on the north-east coast of the prefecture.

The plan has been attacked by people living close to Camp Schwab and environmentalists, who claim that the proposal for new runways built on reclaimed land will devastate the local flora and fauna.

The US has stated that it wants to stick with the existing plan. John Roos, the US ambassador to Tokyo, said on Friday that Japan will be given time "to analyse, to review, to ask questions and, hopefully, come to the conclusion that it is in both parties' best interests."

It is not at all certain that Yukio Hatoyama, the prime minister, agrees with that assessment as he has been a vocal critic of U.S. foreign and financial policies, as well as expressing a desire to follow a more independent security line than previous Japanese governments.

Mr Hatoyama himself has indicated that he would support reducing the burden on the people of Okinawa by moving the activities of Futenma out of the prefecture entirely.

Work to review the agreement began in the Japanese cabinet on Friday, with no deadline set for a decision, according to Mr Okada.

The urgency of the situation is underlined by the arrival in Japan in November of President Barack Obama, who will arrive with hopes of settling the contentious issue once and for all.

[vector7]

Don't miss these articles times are changing fast!

Japan Threatening to Oust US Troops From Okinawa

New Japanese Govt Seeks to Force Negotiations

by Jason Ditz,
October 07, 2009

Faced with their first major change in governance since World War 2, Japan’s new Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) ruled government is seeking to relieve long-standing grievances regarding the massive US military presence.


US bases (red) cover much of Okinawa

But the US ruled out holding any negotiations with the new government regarding its 60+ year long military presence, insisting they made all the agreements they need with the outgoing Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).

The DPJ is reportedly playing hardball now, however, threatening to kick the US military off the island of Okinawa, which is where the bulk of their presence is situated. The islanders have long complained about the major burden of tens of thousands of US soldiers occupying a large chunk of their island.

The LDP’s solution was to pay the US billions of dollars to relocate one of their bases. The DPJ however insists that if the US wants a sustainable alliance with Japan it will return to the bargaining table, and soon.

[American Patriot]

The troops that commit crimes need to be removed and court martialed.

[Malsua]

Yup. Prosecute criminals, I don't care if they're wearing a uniform or not.

I wonder why crime is such an issue. Is there really a whole bunch of rape going on or is this just a political thing and they are using these to further an agenda.

[vector7]

I think it is truly both.
The new Democratic regime in Japan is becoming closer to the Axis members and the Communist Party has been active in Japan.

Our society is now rotting from within and having our our service men acting like gang members in foreign allied host countries is not going to help keep allies.

As Obama continues to diminish the American hegemony role in the world, he has openly stated he is ready to conform this nation to member of the socialized UN order. China and Russia with their axis members are poised to fill the vacuum and take on new roles and gain new allies in the process.

Rob Okinawa City taxi driver

Date Posted: 2008-03-17

Three men attacked an Okinawa City taxi driver early Sunday morning less than 200 meters from Kadena Air Base, beat him, then took off with his money.

Okinawa City Police are asking for help from American military authorities in tracking the three men, whom the taxi driver identified as black men who spoke English to him. The taxi driver was hit in the head with an unidentified object.

The taxi driver fled from the three men. He told police ¥8,000 was stolen from his taxi cash box after he got away from the trio.
Posted by Added Entry at 2:05 PM
Labels: JapanUpdate


3 foreigners rob Okinawa taxi driver of 8,000 yen

March 17, 2008

NAHA -- Three foreigners robbed a taxi driver of about 8,000 yen near a U.S. base in Okinawa Prefecture over the weekend, police said.

Local police have contacted U.S. forces in Okinawa to see if the three are soldiers or workers at a U.S. base.

At around 12:20 a.m. on Sunday, three foreigners stopped a taxi on a street in the Chuo district of the city of Okinawa. Its 55-year-old driver got out of the vehicle when one of the three hit him on the head, local police said. The driver fell down on the road and suffered slight injuries to his right knee and right wrist.

The three grabbed a box in the vehicle containing about 8,000 yen and fled the scene. The three were blacks, according to investigators.

The scene is situated only about 150 meters east of Gate No. 2 at the U.S. Air Force Kadena base.


Foreigners attack, rob Okinawa City taxi driver

Date Posted: 2008-03-17

Three men attacked an Okinawa City taxi driver early Sunday morning less than 200 meters from Kadena Air Base, beat him, then took off with his money.

Okinawa City Police are asking for help from American military authorities in tracking the three men, whom the taxi driver identified as black men who spoke English to him. The taxi driver was hit in the head with an unidentified object.

The taxi driver fled from the three men. He told police ¥8,000 was stolen from his taxi cash box after he got away from the trio.
Posted by Added Entry at 2:05 PM
Labels: JapanUpdate


Japanese officials propose SOFA revisions

By David Allen and Chiyomi Sumida, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Sunday, March 16, 2008

CHATAN, Okinawa — If you live off base in Japan, the country’s leading opposition parties want to know who you are and where you live.

If they get their way, all Americans living outside the base gates under the bilateral Status of Forces Agreement would have to file as aliens at town and city offices.


Photo: Rental houses near the Sunabe Seawall on Okinawa are popular with Americans working at nearby Kadena Air Base. If Japan's opposition parties had their way, SOFA-status personnel living off base would have to register with their local cities and towns.

The Democratic Party of Japan drew up a proposal to revise the SOFA in coordination with the Social Democratic Party and People’s New Party. It stems from outrage over an alleged rape on Okinawa on Feb. 10 involving a 38-year-old Marine staff sergeant and a 14-year-old Okinawa girl, party officials said Friday.



The Marine, Tyrone Hadnott, lived alone in a single home in Kitanakagusuku, near Okinawa City. He allegedly raped the girl inside his van parked near a seaside park in Chatan.

However, Japanese prosecutors declined to seek an indictment when the girl’s family asked that the charge be dropped. Hadnott was turned over to military authorities, who are considering charging him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The opposition parties plan to announce details of their proposal this week, officials said.

They also are calling for the immediate turnover to Japanese custody of all SOFA-status personnel charged with crimes. Under the current SOFA, the Japanese police retain custody of persons they arrest, but the military retains custody prior to indictment in a Japanese court if the suspect is detained by the military. There is a gentlemen’s agreement for the early turnover of servicemembers charged with major felonies.

Custody was not an issue in the Hadnott case since he was arrested by Japanese police.

According to Japan’s Ministry of Defense, there are 92,491 SOFA-status personnel living in Japan, 47,088 on the mainland and 45,403 on Okinawa. Of that number, 21,885 people live off base, 11,566 in mainland communities and 10,319 on Okinawa.

However, the number and details — where the Americans live and how many people live in each off-base home — are not shared with the local governments.

Under the current Alien Registration Law, all foreigners must be registered with the city, town or village in which their residence is located within 90 days of arriving in Japan. They must submit an application for alien registration, a passport and two passport-size photographs. SOFA-status personnel are exempt from the law.

“Our attempt is to add what is missing in the bilateral agreement,” said Diet member Mikio Shimoji of Okinawa, one of the opposition politicians who is seeking revision of the SOFA.

However, he believes the residency issue is not as serious a problem as the health issue caused by aircraft noise.

“Incidents involving servicemembers receive a lot of publicity — but it’s just the symbol of the military-related problems,” he said.

Shimoji said he’d like to have all SOFA-status personnel with families live in the surrounding communities, so they can appreciate the culture, and all single servicemembers live on the bases.

“People want to know who their neighbors are and where they work,” he said. “Living and becoming part of the local community will help to deepen (mutual) understanding and friendship … which will subsequently help to prevent problems and offenses from happening.”

He believes it is the single SOFA personnel who cause the problems.

Other officials believe registering off-base residents is not enough.

“What we really need is information about them, including the branch of the service he or she belongs to,” said Takashi Teruya, chief of Okinawa City’s Military Affairs Office. “We frequently receive complaints from our residents concerning problems with their American neighbors over such issues as trash, illegal parking or noise.

“With no information on the (SOFA) residents, we don’t know where to bring the issue to settle it,” he said. “We know that the majority of Americans in our communities are good people, but there are always some, small as the number may be, who create problems. … It is important to solve little problems while they are still small.”

Chatan Mayor Masaharu Noguni said residency registration for SOFA personnel would “ease local residents’ anxiety.”

“Regardless of being an American, Japanese or any other nationality, it is very important to assimilate into the community to maintain good term with neighbors,” he said. “It will be nice if Americans living off base joined the local neighborhood associations to be part of the community.”
Posted by Added Entry at 1:00 AM
Labels: StarsStripes



Separate courts-martial to begin in April for four at Iwakuni charged with rape

By Travis J. Tritten, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Friday, March 14, 2008

Courts-martial dates are set for four Iwakuni Marines accused of gang-raping a Hiroshima woman in October, the Marine Corps said Wednesday.

The men face separate trials at the air station beginning in late April and ending in May, base spokesman Master Gunnery Sgt. John Cordero said.

Gunnery Sgt. Carl M. Anderson, Gunnery Sgt. Jarvis D. Raynor, Sgt. Lanaeus J. Braswell and Lance Cpl. Larry A. Dean are charged with crimes that include rape, conspiracy and kidnapping. They have been confined on base since the allegations surfaced in October.

The Marines were referred to general courts-martial after a preliminary hearing in February that featured testimony by the accuser, a Japanese woman who was a 19-year-old minor during the Oct. 14 incident.

Japanese prosecutors declined to indict the Marines in November after their own investigation.

The woman testified she left a Hiroshima club with Braswell on Oct. 14 to have consensual sex in a vehicle with one of the Marines, but was kidnapped by the four men and forced to have sex about five times in a nearby parking lot.

The Marines pushed her from the vehicle and stole about 12,000 yen from her purse, she said.

The woman admitted drinking alcohol and initially lying to police when she was picked up after the incident. She said she didn’t tell police because she was frightened and ashamed.

Defense attorneys said the woman continued to lie to police for weeks during the rape investigation and made up the crimes to avoid punishment from the police and her mother.

The courts-martial come when the U.S. military is attempting to crack down on crimes by servicemembers.

Courts-martial

Here are the courts-martial dates:

Sgt. Lanaeus J. Braswell, April 21-25.

Lance Cpl. Larry A. Dean, May 6-9.

Gunnery Sgt. Carl M. Anderson, May 19-23.

Gunnery Sgt. Jarvis D. Raynor, May 21-23.

Source: U.S. Marine Corps
Posted by Added Entry at 1:00 AM
Labels: StarsStripes


Trouble-making U.S. soldiers in Japan? Are they crazy?

What to do about those American soldiers stationed at U.S. military bases in Japan who rape or annoy or sometimes even kill the locals, much to their Japanese hosts' consternation? How about trying to figure out what's going on in their heads?
Roughly 50,000 U.S. troop are now based in Japan; the broader, American military-related population there totals some 96,000 people. Discontent about the presence of the foreign troops on Japanese soil has been exacerbated by the recent news that Olatunbosun Ugbogu, a 22-year-old Nigerian national serving in the U.S. Navy in Japan, has been charged by Japanese prosecutors in the murder of a taxi driver in March of this year. "Japanese anger over the U.S. military presence [also] has grown...following an alleged rape in February of a 14-year-old girl by a U.S. Marine on Okinawa" in the far south of Japan, where more than half of all the U.S. troops in the country are stationed. Okinawa-based U.S. Marine Sergeant Tyrone Hadnott now faces a court-martial "on charges of kidnapping and raping" the adolescent girl. (Reuters; S.F. Gate "World Views," Apr. 25, 2008)


Kyodo/Reuters

In Japan, earlier this month, U.S. military officials escorted Olatunbosun Ugbogu (center), a Nigerian serving in the U.S. Navy there; the sailor has been charged by Japanese prosecutors in the murder of a taxi driver in March

In the face of such image-harming news as this, next month the U.S. Navy "will start conducting a survey on the mental state of about 20,000 of its military and civilian personnel in Japan following a spate of crimes....It will be the first such background check by the U.S. military in Japan....The survey is part of the soldier-management program that has been implemented by the U.S. military to prevent crime and is aimed at identifying those who misbehave or have violent personality traits....[Anyone who is] perceived to have a problem will be obliged to undergo counseling and other special-education programs. Should no improvement be made, [such a] person will be transferred [back] to the U.S." (Kyodo in the Japan Times)

Over in South Korea, where some 27,000 U.S. troops are stationed, the Korea Times reports that Washington "is likely to accept a request" by U.S. Army General Burwell Baxter Bell III, the American forces' top commander there, "to extend the length of tours [of duty] by U.S. troops [in South Korea] and have their families accompany them" while they are stationed in the East Asian country. The Korea Times notes that the government of South Korea "welcomes" the idea of extended tours of duty by U.S. soldiers, "while some critics are worried that the family-accompanied program, along with a plan to pause the reduction of U.S. troops, would burden South Korean taxpayers." These topics will be on the agenda when U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates visits Seoul in June.


Lee Jung-hoon/Yonhap, via Reuters

At the beginning of March, U.S. Marines and South Korean soldiers conducted a joint military drill at the U.S. Army's Rodriguez range in Pocheon, about 43 miles northeast of Seoul

"Currently, most U.S. troops [stationed in South Korea] are required to serve one-year tours without their families," the Korea Times reports.

By contrast, it adds, at U.S. military installations in Europe and Japan, "about 75 percent of U.S. troops are accompanied by their families. Bell has reportedly formally recommended that the Pentagon extend tour lengths in South Korea to fall in line with those in Europe and Japan and to reflect South Korea's vast transformation from 'a war-ravaged country to a modern, first-world country.'" Earlier this year, Bell was quoted by the U.S. military newspaper, the Stars and Stripes, as saying: "It is unacceptable in the U.S. military today to have this kind of policy in place and in any way condone it." (Cited by the Korea Times)

The U.S. government "is expected to ask South Korea to pay more for the presence of its troops and their families during forthcoming defense cost-sharing talks...." South Korea "currently pays about $751 million..., or 43 percent[,] of costs related to the [U.S. Forces Korea] presence, while the United States has called on Seoul to pay more to reach the 50-50 level." (Korea Times)

J
o Yong-Hak/Reuters

South Korea, March 6, 2008: Anti-U.S. and anti-war protesters took part in a rally denouncing a joint military exercise involving American and South Korean troops

A separate Korea Times news article published earlier this month reported that the recently disclosed results of an opinion poll of first-year army cadets at the Korea Military Academy (KMA) in Seoul (data that had not been made known during the administration of former South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, who left office in February) showed that 34 percent of respondents had named the United States as their country's main enemy. A former superintendent of the military academy, commenting on the survey's findings (that apparently were a few years old), noted that, by contrast, 33 percent of the cadets who had responded to the poll had named North Korea as South Korea's main enemy. The former military-academy official described the survey's results as "unbelievable, stressing [that] the respondents were those who were supposed to be[come] military officers." Meanwhile, the Korea Times article noted, the communist government of North Korea has not issued any official "document or official commentaries" that "describe South Korea as the main enemy" of Kim Jong-il's regime. Instead, North Korea has "reportedly defined the U.S. [as] a 'mortal enemy' and Japan [as] a 'longstanding enemy.'"
Posted By: Edward M. Gomez (Email) | April 30 2008 at 08:14 AM

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...#ixzz0TRwQD8Kk

U.S. Marine faces court-martial over Okinawa rape

• U.S. to try Okinawa marine for rape
• U.S. marine to face court-martial over rape
• Staff sergeant charged with rape on Okinawa
• U.S. Marine faces court-martial over Okinawa rape
• US military to court-martial Marine in Okinawa rap...
• Marine charged with violation of military code ove...
• Marine charged with rape of 14-year-old girl in Ja...
• US marine charged with Okinawa rape
• U.S. military charges Marine in Okinawa rape case
• US marine charged over Japan rape
• U.S. Marine charged with rape in Japan
• Marine charged in Japan rape case
• Marine charged with violations of UCMJ, sent to Ge...
• US Marine charged with rape in Japan
• Marine to face court-martial for alleged rape in O...
• U.S. Marine faces court-martial over alleged rape ...
• U.S. Marine charged with violations of UCMJ, sent ...

[vector7]

November 9, 2009
Japan's Security Policy: Navigating the Troubled Waters Ahead
by Bruce Klingner
Backgrounder #2340

Abstract: The U.S. relationship with Japan has just become more complicated. The recent election victory of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) has resulted in more resistance to a truly shared U.S.-Japanese mission. Refusing to provide troops to aid the coalition in Afghanistan, and generally uninterested in actively engaging in overseas security missions, the risk-averse DPJ is pulling back from its responsibilities in the U.S.-Japan alliance, as well as internationally. This leaves the U.S. in the position of responding to an ally who demands an equal role yet resists assuming equal responsibilities. Heritage Foundation Asia expert Bruce Klingner lays out the likely consequences of diverging U.S. and Japanese security interests, and provides a map to help the Obama Administration navigate the turbulent waters of the U.S. relationship with Japan's new government.

The victory by the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) in the August 2009 lower house election was a historic and revolutionary event in Japanese politics. It forced the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to leave office for only the second time in 50 years. Of concern to the United States is the fact that the DPJ has made some remarkably provocative statements about Japan's alliance with the U.S.--which reflect both the party's traditional positions as well as those it has taken since assuming office.

Although the DPJ softened some of its more strident anti-alliance rhetoric during the election, the party's policy views have not fundamentally changed. Japan's new DPJ leadership has articulated positions on several security issues, such as U.S. force realignment in Japan, that are significantly different from those of Washington. The DPJ depicts Japan's previous overseas deployments as forced concessions to U.S. demands in the name of the alliance, rather than as the contributions of a major nation to international security challenges. The DPJ has pledged to be more resistant to futuresecurityrequests from the U.S.

The DPJ's strategic vision differs significantly from that of the U.S. and presages a greater potential for divergent priorities between Japan and the United States. The DPJ has demanded a more equal role in the alliance yet is unable to define what it wants. The DPJ favors redefining the alliance to include "non-traditional security" so that Japanese international monetary donations and civilian deployments overseas can count as security contributions, offsetting the need to augment Japan's defense forces or increase defense spending. These moves will only exacerbate any tensions generated during early debates over relocating U.S. forces on Okinawa, as well as Japanese support to the coalition in Afghanistan.

Public statements downplaying any concerns on the potential for additional strains in the alliance by Obama Administration officials have been strikingly different from private comments. Private remarks by U.S. officials reflected angst over possible "very serious problems" with the new government.[1] The DPJ misinterpreted the U.S. public reticence as endorsement for a re-definition of the alliance and Japan's commitments.

It is clear that under DPJ leadership, Japan will be even more risk-averse than it was under its predecessor, and more resistant to adopting international security responsibilities commensurate with its status as a major nation. While careful alliance management by both countries can mitigate further strains, Washington faces an era of greater uncertainty in its military relationship with Japan.

The U.S. and Japan continue to share basic strategic objectives: dealing with a rising China in a way that maximizes the economic value of China's integration into the international economy while minimizing the significant political and security threats it poses; the struggle against international terrorism, whether in Afghanistan or off the coast of Somalia; and the threat from North Korea's nuclear weapons and missile programs. The U.S. and Japan also share a democratic value system with Japan that should not be discounted.

In response to political changes in Japan, the U.S. should refrain from moving the policy goalposts in the hope that the weight of shared interests and values will force the Japanese to honor their commitments. At the same time the U.S. can hedge against uncertainty by relying more on other allies and its own forces to address regional and international security threats.

A Historic Political Victory. The DPJ won a record 308 of 480 seats in the lower house of the legislature, up from the 115 it held previously. The election result was an incredible turnaround from November 2007 when then-DPJ chief Ichiro Ozawa offered to resign, stating the DPJ was "lacking in ability" and had little chance of winning the next lower house election. His comments not only caused a backlash against him personally but affirmed the widely held belief that the DPJ was amateurish and forever doomed to remain an opposition party. (See Chart 1 and Chart 2.)

Japan's 2005 and 2009 Election Results

Japan's 2007 Election Results


In order to gain absolute majorities in both the lower and upper houses of parliament after the 2009 election, the DPJ entered into a coalition with the much smaller Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the People's New Party. The fact that the DPJ had to rely on these minor parties to form a governing coalition gives them disproportionate influence on policymaking. The DPJ hopes to oust the SDP after gaining additional seats in the 2010 upper house election.

The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) dropped from 300 to 119 seats, largely because the public viewed the LDP as not being able to remedy the people's economic plight, nor caring about it. The ignominy of the LDP's defeat is reflected in the election ouster of a former prime minister, finance minister, former defense minister, and faction leaders.

It was not surprising that the LDP lost but, rather, that it took so long to be thrown from office after Japanese citizens had clearly lost confidence in its leadership.[2] Under the LDP, Japan suffered endless political scandals, two decades of anemic economic performance, and a skyrocketing government debt.

Following its defeat, the LDP now faces its time in the political wilderness. Voter alienation from the LDP is high and the party's bench is thin for potential leaders after a revolving door of disappointingly lackluster prime ministers during the past three years. The party must now adapt to an opposition role. It must decide whether it will provide sound policy alternatives or whether it resorts to the obstructionist tactics that the DPJ employed.

Foreign Policy of Little Concern to Japanese Electorate. The outcome of the lower house election was determined by domestic issues, which will remain the focus of the electorate and thus the ruling party. Japan's attention will be directed inward, seeking to resolve a faltering economic system threatened not only by the current global financial downturn but also the looming crisis of supporting an increasingly graying society. The DPJ is preoccupied with winning next year's upper house election, defined as gaining sufficient seats to oust the SDP from the coalition.

But while domestic issues dominate Japanese thinking, foreign and security policies loom larger for Washington. The U.S. is concerned that Japan is showing no intention of assuming greater security responsibilities and appears complacent, willing to cede the Asian leadership role to China.

DPJ Security Policy--Hitting a Moving Target. The DPJ willchange Japanese foreign policy and alter the relationship with the U.S. How dramatic that change will be remains to be seen and is subject to American policy choices. The DPJ enters office without a clear strategic security vision or blueprint for implementing its campaign pledges for sweeping policy changes. Its campaign policy manifesto was a consensus document that softened its independent foreign policy positions of recent years in order to gain favor with the electorate and reassure the U.S.

During the election, the DPJ:

Backed away from its previous calls for "drastic revisions of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the U.S.," instead opting to "propose revisions."[3]

Dropped plans to immediately halt Japanese participation in naval refueling operations in the Indian Ocean, which supported international anti-terrorism operations in Afghanistan, instead allowing it to continue until enabling legislation expired in January 2010. Postponement allowed for greater continuity in coalition operations.

Accepted Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Forces (SDF) participation in ongoing Somali anti-piracy operations as well as future missions if they exceeded Japanese coast guard capabilities and "after building a system to maintain and ensure civilian control" of the SDF.[4] Previously, the party was unequivocally opposed to dispatching the SDF to protect Japanese ships from pirates.

Called for implementing inspections of North Korean cargo ships under U.N. Resolution 1874 sanctions. Previously, DPJ opposition had led an LDP-initiated bill allowing inspections to be scrapped. However, after the election, the DPJ reversed itself again and decided against submitting a bill allowing for inspections of North Korean vessels as required by Resolution 1874, though this was reversed yet again one week later.[5]

The DPJ continued to temper some of its security-policy positions after the election. But although the moderated rhetoric is reassuring to Washington, DPJ security-policy positions remain problematic for the U.S. The more that the DPJ stresses continuity in foreign policy to reassure the U.S., the more it risks alienating its liberal faction and generating politically damaging accusations of hypocrisy.

DPJ Struggling to Formulate Security Policy. Japan's current ambiguous foreign policy reflects internal party divisions. The DPJ is a big tent ranging from socialists to conservatives. The right side of the party has more policy similarities with the rival LDP than it does with its socialist DPJ counterparts. The conservative faction balks at the more extreme positions of its liberal DPJ members.

During post-election negotiations to form a coalition government, the SDP pressed the DPJ to return to its earlier left-of-center policy manifesto positions to revise the Status of Forces Agreement, review the presence of U.S. forces in Japan, and end Japan's participation in refueling operations. Some claim that the DPJ was forced by the SDP to return to its left-of-center roots but will be able to pursue more centrist policies after next summer's upper house election.[6] But large segments of the DPJ are left of center and would resist moving further to the center.

There will continue to be a tug-of-war between those advocating moderate positions and those highlighting the need to maintain support from the SDP. Until the DPJ factions overcome their differences and define the new government's foreign and security policies, Japan's course will remain indeterminate and unpredictable. In the meantime, the vision articulated by the new government is disturbing from an alliance perspective.

A New Japanese Strategic Vision. The DPJ has articulated a very different vision of its relationship with Washington. Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama advocates that Japan pursue a path to protect Japan's political and economic independence, since he sees the country as being "caught" between the U.S. and China.[7]

A DPJ upper house legislator described the changing global environment brought on by a declining U.S. as a commensurate dispersal of power and a growing inability of the developed countries to influence rising nations such as China. As a result, Japan must accommodate itself to this new reality, including making accommodations with China. The DPJ would therefore, the legislator explained, base its foreign policy on the recognition of this changed environment, including a U.S. shift from reliance on alliances under Bush to a more multi-lateralist approach under Obama.[8]

DPJ Statements on the U.S.-Japan Alliance

"Japan's relations with the U.S. have been heavily biased toward defense. Now it's time to shift our focus to economic ties."[1] Prime Minister Hatoyama, August 17, 2009.

"Until now, Japan has acted to suit U.S. convenience. But rather than doing so, Japan-U.S. relations should be on an equal footing so that our side can strongly assert Japan's will."[2] Prime Minister Hatoyama, August 31, 2009.

"There is concern that Japan will be entangled in one-sided use of force by the U.S. in a global range.... The right of collective self defense is Japan's right under international law, and does not mean Japan is automatically obliged to join missions with its allies."[3] Prime Minister Hatoyama, 2008.

"[Under previous administrations, Japanese] foreign policy was excessively dependent on the U.S. I want to develop a foreign policy which will be able to convey our own thinking."[4] Minister of
Foreign Affairs Katsuya Okada, September 17, 2009.

"Priority should be given to Asia first, and then to the Japan-U.S. alliance...It is now necessary to discuss whether the concentration of U.S. bases on Okinawa is normal."[5] Minister of Foreign Affairs Katsuya Okada, July 2009.

Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa described the current Status of Forces Agreement as "humiliat*ing" for Japan.[6] October 15, 2009.

"Japan-China relations should be as close as Japan-U.S. relations to form triangular relations with two equal sides.[7] DPJ Secretary General Ichiro Ozawa, February 23, 2009.

[1]Mari Yamaguchi, "Japan opposition head seeks economic ties with US, "Associated Press, August 17, 2009.

[2]"Voters Turn Out Ruling Party in Japanese Election," The Washington Post, August 31, 2009.

[3]Yukio Hatoyama, "Kempo kaisei shian no chukan hokoku" (Interim report of my private proposal on constitutional revision), as quoted in Leif-Eric Easley, Tetsuo Kotani, and Aki Mori, "Electing a New Japanese Security Policy? Examining Foreign Policy Visions within the Democratic Party of Japan," National Bureau of Asian Research Asia Policy No. 9, January 2010, at http://www.nbr.org/Publications/Asia...iaPolicy9_DPJ_
AdvanceDraft.pdf (November 4, 2009).

[4]Mure Dickie and Alec Russell, "Okada Seeks to Redefine Japan-US Relations," Financial Times, September 17, 2009.

[5]Daniel Sneider, "A Japan that Can Say Maybe: The Foreign Policy of the DPJ," Presentation at Woodrow Wilson International Center, July 21, 2009.

[6]Kyoko Hasegawa, "Japan Minister: US Troop Agreement Humiliating," AFP, October 15, 2009.

[7]Ozawa comment during a meeting with CCP International liaison director Wang Jiarui, February 23, 2009, see James J. Przystup, "Japan-China Relations, New Year, Old Problems," Comparative Connections, April 2009, at
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pub...apan_china.pdf (November 4, 2009).

Defining a More Equal Alliance...on Japanese Terms. Prime Minister Hatoyama affirmed that the U.S.-Japanese alliance should "continue to be the cornerstone of Japanese diplomatic policy" but questions some of the basic assumptions of the alliance. He and other DPJ legislators have called for a more independent Japan participating in a more equal alliance with Washington that reduces the burden of hosting U.S. bases.

The DPJ's 2007 manifesto called for "re-examining the role of the U.S. military in the security of the Asia-Pacific region and the significance of U.S. bases in Japan." Some DPJ officials have suggested that the U.S.'s 47,000 troops and 90 military bases should be reduced dramatically or eliminated.[9]

The DPJ has been unable to articulate what it means by a "more equal alliance." The bilateral alliance can never truly be equal as long as Japan remains heavily dependent on the U.S. for its defense. The DPJ should understand that overcoming inequalities requires Japan to assume additional security responsibilities--with a commensurate increase in defense spending--both of which Tokyo has long been loath to do.

Equality would also require Japan to adopt a less restrictive interpretation of collective self-defense and implement less restrictive rules of engagement for its military units overseas. But a survey of DPJ lower house legislators showed that 53 percent saw no need to revise the current constitutional interpretation and only 19 percent advocated its revision.[10]

Japan remains unable or unwilling to shoulder the responsibilities of a larger security role. Instead, the new government will advocate that Japan assume larger responsibilities outside the security field as a compensatory measure for maintaining or reducing its current security commitment. As such, the DPJ will push to expand the definition of the military relationship to include "non-traditional security" so that non-security issues can be counted as security contributions to the military alliance.

The DPJ wants to limit Japan's overseas role to economic donations and low-risk civilian reconstruction efforts. In essence, substituting boots on the ground with sneakers on the ground as much as possible. When Japanese defense forces are deployed, the emphasis would be on combat support units (transportation, medical, etc.) instead of security, infantry, or peacekeepers in hostile environments.

The DPJ harbors resentment over the fact that Japan feels forced by the U.S. to engage in overseas commitments. As such, the new government vows to be more resistant to future U.S. entreaties. Japan is a global nation with international interests but has been reluctant to defend them. As a major nation, it should also aspire to be actively involved in international responses to global challenges rather than being dragged into them. Japan's aversion to security risks means the U.S. and its troops must assume the lion's share of danger.

Contentious Operational Issues. The DPJ has articulated policies contrary to those of the U.S. on a number of security issues that will serve as friction points in the relationship. The most notable arethe DPJ's opposition to Japanese maritime refueling operations in support of coalition counterterrorism operations, Japanese support in Afghanistan, and U.S. force realignment on Okinawa.

Indian Ocean Refueling Operations. Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa announced on October 13 that Japan would withdraw from Indian Ocean refueling operations when enabling legislation expired on January 15, 2010. The decision came despite a plea by Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani to extend Japanese involvement, which supports his country's anti-Taliban operations. DPJ Secretary General Ozawa had long criticized Japanese involvement in the Indian Ocean refueling as unconstitutional since it was not specifically approved by the U.N.

Nearly three-quarters of DPJ lawmakers in the lower house polled in October thought SDF overseas operations should be limited to peacekeeping or humanitarian relief. Only 12 percent support sending Japanese troops to provide assistance to multinational forces, including logistic support.[11] A DPJ upper house legislator privately commented that during the past eight years, Japan was forced by the U.S. to engage in more dangerous missions rather than the usually safe U.N. peacekeeping operations.[12]

Afghanistan. DPJ officials are debating what Japan should offer to the U.S. as compensation for ending the last Japanese security contribution to the Iraq-Afghanistan theater of operations. U.S. officials hope that Japan will pledge some deployment of military forces to Afghanistan, such as CH-47 heavy-lift helicopter transport units. However, Foreign Minister Okada declared that Japan has no intention of sending troops to Afghanistan, not even in a non-combat role as it did in Iraq. Furthermore, he said it would even be too dangerous to send aid workers to the area. "In the current situation we can't guarantee the safety of our civilians, so it may be the case that we provide funding instead."[13]

Although Japan characterizes Afghan contributions as U.S. demands, British Undersecretary of Defense Quentin Davies recommended that Japan should make further contributions to international efforts in Afghanistan. He told Japanese Parliamentary Defense Secretary Akihisa Nagashima on October 19 that the U.K. hoped Tokyo would play a more appreciable role so that a Japanese abandonment of the refueling operations should not be seen as a retreat from Japan's international role.[14]

Yet, the DPJ appears intent on going down the path of predominantly non-security contributions, which generated extensive derisive international criticism of Japanese "checkbook diplomacy" following the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Instead, the DPJ needs to provide a proper mix of security and non-security contributions.

U.S. Force Realignment on Okinawa. The U.S. and Japan signed an agreement in April 2006 to redeploy a U.S. Marine Corps air unit from Futenma Marine Corps Air Station in a heavily populated region of Okinawa to Camp Schwab in a more remote location on the island. The relocation is a precondition for the redeployment of 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam and the return of several U.S. bases to Okinawan control.

The DPJ has called for revising the existing agreement. There are a wide range of views within the party, including modifying Camp Schwab, moving the Futenma unit instead to Kadena Air Base (also on Okinawa), and redeploying the Marine air unit or all U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam. A DPJ study group led by Okinawa DPJ representatives recommended moving the U.S. air unit from Futenma to Kadena and limiting flight training to a civilian training airport 200 miles southwest of Okinawa.[15] Such a plan would lead to a decline in U.S. flight training.[16]

Prime Minister Hatoyama advocates moving the U.S. Marine air unit off Okinawa. Foreign Minister Okada described the current agreement as "unacceptable"[17] since "considering the burden that is placed on Okinawa in terms of the over-concentration of U.S. bases, we have to be making an effort to achieve base reduction."[18] Defense Minister Kitazawa asserts that Okinawans want the U.S. bases closed. The DPJ government hopes to "end the suffering and the burden endured by the Okinawan people who have long hosted the U.S. bases."[19]

Hatoyama criticized his predecessors as "irresponsible" for allowing more than 10 years to pass without agreeing on the relocation. He said that the issue should not be left pending any longer and called for the "earliest possible conclusion."[20] Of course, the issue is not pending, since Japan signed an agreement resolving it in 2006. Moreover, Hatoyama declared on October 15 that political considerations would delay his own decision. He envisioned deferring a decision until the "midpoint of the period between the Nago city mayoral election [January 2010] and the Okinawan gubernatorial election [November 2010]."

Hatoyama said the DPJ was "most concerned about the [Okinawan] citizens' sentiments." Yet, Okinawa Governor Hirokazu Nakaima recommended adopting the current U.S.-Japanese agreement and the mayors of the towns encompassing Futenma and Camp Schwab both urged a quicker timetable.[21]

The Obama Administration should emphasize that the existing agreement does address Okinawa constituent concerns by moving the Marine unit to a less populated area. The overall force realignment would also reduce the U.S. footprint on Okinawa and lead to the return of land to local authorities.

Key U.S. Military Bases in Okinawa

Facing the Uncertain Future of the Alliance

It will take time for the DPJ to finalize its security policies. The DPJ may prefer focusing on domestic topics and defer security issues until after the upper house election, but the world intrudes. However, it is already clear that Hatoyama's Japan will be more hesitant to fulfill existing agreements and resistant to expanding the alliance to address global security threats. The DPJ is sure to:

Be reluctant to remove self-imposed constraints on Japan's ability to deploy forces overseas;

Advocate any future overseas deployments be done in a U.N. rather than U.S. alliance context;

Maintain the status quo of Japan's declining defense budget;

Focus on economic and "soft" security issues, such as building an East Asian regional architecture; and

Exert more independence in its policies and adopt a greater balance in considering both U.S. and China interests when making security decisions. A former U.S. diplomat with extensive service in Asia described Hatoyama as seeing Japan's relations with the U.S. and China as zero-sum rather than complementary.[22]

Three principal factors will determine the degree of divergence between Washington and Tokyo, and thus the extent of strains in the bilateral alliance: which policies the DPJ implements and the manner in which it pushes them; the demands by the U.S.; and the condition of the global threat environment.

The DPJ must weigh (1) how to fulfill campaign pledges by pursuing contrarian security policies to show it is different from its predecessor and (2) how much it wants to roil the alliance with Washington. As the DPJ discovers the difference between campaigning and governing, it may end up implementing only minor policy changes. For the next year, the DPJ may choose to split the difference by gaining political points with some cosmetic changes with Washington while minimizing negative impact on the bilateral alliance.

Doing so would minimize the potential for handing the opposition LDP a campaign issue by accusing the DPJ of wrecking the important security relationship with the U.S. But even subtle changes or alterations in tone can have significant and far-reaching implications for Japan's alliance with the United States.

Similarly, the degree to which the Obama Administration presses Tokyo to strictly adhere to previous bilateral agreements and pushes Japan to deploy SDF forces to Afghanistan will also affect the alliance. The Obama Administration has yet to indicate whether it will acquiesce to the DPJ inclination to minimize overseas risks and commitments to check-writing and civilian deployments.

U.S. officials responsible for Asia policy have privately expressed much greater concern with the new Japanese government than the Obama Administration has let on publicly.[23] The U.S. officials' concern grew after meeting with their new Japanese counterparts. While downplaying potential friction points publicly is understandable from an alliance management viewpoint, it has provided a misleading impression of the worries that Washington has over the impact of DPJ policies.

What the U.S. Should Do

The Obama Administration should tread carefully to avoid alienating its newly assertive and prickly ally. It needs to give Japan room to re-discover the two countries' many shared interests. But Washington's patience should not be endless when it comes to implementing previously agreed-upon commitments and resolving pending issues, such as Japanese participation in Afghanistan.

The U.S. should make clear that Japan cannot withdraw from global security challenges nor rely on others to defend Tokyo's overseas interests. Candidate Obama stated during the presidential campaign that he would "seek greater contributions [in Afghanistan] with fewer restrictions from NATO allies as well as our friends and allies in Asia."[24]

The two nations should discuss areas where Japan can play a greater security role in both Afghanistan and globally. One possibility is to assume a greater leadership role in defending sea lines of communication with its naval forces. The shortcomings of Japan's contribution to combating Somali pirates points to the need for realistic rules of engagement.

It is critical for the U.S. to point out that disagreements in one area can pervasively poison the atmosphere of the relationship. The DPJ-led government could share characteristics with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun's strained relations with the U.S. Although Roh eventually softened his rhetoric and contentious issues were resolved, his initial gaffes left a residue of underlying tension in the relationship which made subsequent progress on other topics difficult. Strong U.S.-South Korea economic interaction was unable to compensate for strains in the security relationship.

Washington should also counsel the DPJ about the danger of unintended consequences and make clear that there are ramifications to its statements and policies. If the DPJ insists on moving Marine air units from Okinawa, it would degrade U.S. deterrent and warfighting capabilities, which are, after all, in place to defend Japan, maintain peace and stability in Asia, and constrain Chinese adventurism. A senior U.S. defense official warned in October that DPJ revisions to the existing U.S. force realignment agreement could cause the U.S. Congress to halt funding for the larger redeployment to Guam and well as damage the bilateral relationship of trust.[25]

Demanding the transfer of U.S. forces from Okinawa to Guam may lead instead to their redeployment to the United States or Afghanistan, resulting in a decrease in overall levels of the U.S. Forces Japan. Japan would then be forced to augment its own forces--with an accompanying increase in defense spending--to offset the loss in U.S. capabilities.

Similarly, Foreign Minister Okada's advocacy of a northeast Asian nuclear-free zone, probing classified historic U.S.-Japan nuclear arrangements, and pressing Washington to adopt a "no first use" policy risks undermining the U.S. extended deterrence ("nuclear umbrella") protection of Japan. In May 2009, DPJ shadow foreign minister Yoshio Hachiro said that a nuclear-free zone was the way for Japan to "escape from the [U.S.] nuclear umbrella."[26]

The Obama Administration should:

Treat the new Japanese government with respect in its public statements, and be firm in private.

Take the lead in private discussions with Japan. Waiting until the DPJ security policy is fully formed and publicly articulated makes revision more difficult.

Request Pakistan and those nations participating in international efforts against terrorism to implore Japan to continue its involvement in maritime refueling operations in support of U.N. missions.

Not acquiesce to Japan's desire to make only non-security contributions to combating global security challenges. The Administration should emphasize an expectation that Japan must have a proper mix of security and non-security responsibilities. The U.S., in conjunction with allies, should recommend Japan deploy self-defense forces to Afghanistan such as heavy-lift helicopter units.

Recommend that (1) Japan implement a less restrictive interpretation of the theory of collective self-defense to enable it to defend allies in times of crisis as well as (2) more realistic rules of engagement to enable overseas Japanese security deployments to be an effective contribution rather than a drain on allied resources.

Recommend that Japan provide sufficient funding for security requirements, included shared missions such as missile defense.

Insist on full implementation of the 2006 U.S. force realignment agreement but be amenable to face-saving revisions for the DPJ government, such as the proposed transfer of the replacement Marine Corps air base on Okinawa an additional 50 meters offshore. Washington should emphasize that removing Marine units from Okinawa degrades the defense of Japan.

Conclusion

The overall bilateral U.S.-Japan partnership encompasses sweeping economic, political, and security topics. Within the security realm, most aspects of the alliance have and will continue to work fine with exemplary coordination between U.S. and Japanese forces. Even contentious issues, such as U.S. force realignment, are but one part of the broader alliance. As such, the two countries should engage on issues where there is convergence of perspectives on their national interests, and should not let security disagreements derail them.

The DPJ clearly is not seeking to eliminate or even damage an alliance that allows it to rely on the U.S. for a significant part of its defenses. That said, there will be strategic and operational differences as well as diverging priorities that will cause tension in the relationship.

The U.S. can be neither complacent in its watchfulness nor hesitant in its willingness to assert policy positions in support of U.S. national interests. Although the U.S. should not feel compelled to respond to every statement by a DPJ legislator, this reticence must be balanced with the need to periodically and publicly affirm U.S. positions, lest silence be interpreted by Tokyo as tacit acceptance of policy trial balloons.

The Obama Administration cannot abandon U.S. policies simply because they may differ from the views of the new Japanese government. U.S. strategic interests did not change as a result of a foreign election; neither has Japan's. The U.S. should disregard the counsel of those who advocate abandoning U.S. objectives if they do not conform with DPJ desires.

As the alliance approaches its 60-year anniversary in 2010, both partners will face greater challenges in preventing differences in policy and strategic viewpoints from damaging the relationship. There is greater potential for misinterpretation. This will require deft alliance management.

DPJ security policy options run from, in the best case, a continuance of the disappointingly weak status quo to a more dramatic re-ordering of Japanese priorities away from the U.S. alliance in favor of Asian regionalism.

The U.S. may question the reliability of Japan as an ally if it is willing only to pursue a benevolent assistance role overseas, eschewing any risky security roles. The U.S. would then be left with the difficult decision of lowering its strategic objectives, assuming a higher risk in achieving them, or augmenting military deployments. In the absence of allied security contributions, Washington would be forced to redeploy U.S. troops from existing security commitments in Europe, South Korea, or Japan.

Bruce Klingner is Senior Research Fellow for Northeast Asia in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation.

[1]Author interview with U.S. official.

[2]"Lead Over LDP Has Doubled: Poll," The Japan Times, August, 28, 2009, at http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-b...0090828a2.html (November 4, 2009).

[3]"DPJ Relaxes Stance on Revisions to Status of Forces Agreement," The Mainichi Shimbun,July 24, 2009.

[4]"Election 2009--Battle for Power/DPJ U-Turn on Antipiracy Mission," BusinessWeek, July 24, 2009, at http://bx.businessweek.com/digital-
rights-management/election-2009--battle-for-power--dpj-u-turn-on
-antipiracy-mission/14384473021314588243-2d62325b0c7c22d4f9dd
ca08b6e30f3e/ (November 4, 2009).

[5]"Government Won't Submit Bill on Inspecting DPRK Cargo," The Yomiuri Shimbun, October 15, 2009, at http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national
/20091015TDY01305.htm (November 4, 2009), and "Extra Diet Session to Get
DPRK Cargo Bill," The Yomiuri Shimbun, October 23, 2009.

[6]Author interviews with DPJ legislators and party officials.

[7]Yukio Hatoyama, "A New Path for Japan," The New York Times, August 27, 2009, at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/opinion/27iht-edha
toyama.html (November 4, 2009).

[8]Author conversation with DPJ upper house legislator.

[9]David Pilling, "Japan Shrinks from the American Embrace," Financial Times,July 22 2009.

[10]"DPJ Wary of SDF Missions Overseas," The Japan Times, October 5, 2009.

[11]"DPJ Wary of SDF Missions Overseas," The Japan Times, October 5, 2009, at http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-b...0091005a5.html (November 4, 2009).

[12]Author interview with DPJ upper house legislator.

[13]Jay Alabaster, "Japan May Provide More Aid to Afghanistan," Associated Press, September 20, 2009.

[14]"UK Officials Say Japan Must Do More for Afghanistan," NHK, October 19, 2009.

[15]"Tussle Over Futenma Air Base Move Could Upset U.S. Military's Realignment in Japan," Mainichi Daily News, September 18, 2009.

[16]Author interview with U.S. political and military officials.

[17]Michiyo Nakamoto, "Japan to End Afghan Refueling Mission," Financial Times, October 14, 2009.

[18]"Under the LDP, Foreign Policy Was Excessively Dependent on the U.S.," Euro2day, September 17, 2009.

[19]Kyoko Hasegawa, "Japan Minister: US Troop Agreement Humiliating," AFP, October 15, 2009.

[20]"Hatoyama Comments on Futenma Relocation," NKH World English, October 19, 2009.

[21]"Government Unlikely to Decide on US Base in Okinawa Before Summer," Kyodo News, October 16, 2009; "Okinawa Elections to Delay Futenma Relocation Plan Review," Mainichi Shimbun, October 16, 2009; and "Hatoyama: Futenma Decision Likely in Mid-2010," NHK, October 16, 2009.

[22]Author discussion with former U.S. official.

[23]Author discussion with U.S. officials.

[24]Lalit K Jha, "Situation in Afghanistan is urgent: Obama," Pajhwok Afghan News, October, 23, 2008.

[25]"In Japan, Gates Shows a Willingness to Adjust," Foreign Policy, October 20, 2009, at http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...10/20/in_japan
_gates_shows_a_willingness_to_adjust (November 4, 2009), and "Hatoyama Won't Put Off Base Relocation," Yomiuri Shimbun, October 20, 2009.

[26]The Democratic Party of Japan, "Okada Meets ICNND Co-Chair Evans," May 27, 2009, at http://www.dpj.or.jp/english/news/?num=16114 (November 4, 2009).

[vector7]

11-09-2009 17:06
Future of Japan-US Alliance

By Ralph A. Cossa and Brad Glosserman

The headlines associated with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates' recent visit to Japan notwithstanding, relations between Washington and Tokyo are not as strained as they may appear … at least not yet.

But there is no question that improper handling of a number of sensitive issues before, or worse yet during President Barack Obama's scheduled visit to Tokyo next week could help weaken an alliance that the two sides have spent almost 50 years building.

The Okinawa base issue has grabbed the lion's share of the headlines over what has been portrayed as an ``ultimatum" from Gates that ``it is time to move on," combined with his warning that pulling apart the current (previously agreed upon) plan would be ``immensely complicated and counterproductive."

But Gates also pointed out that ``we are very sympathetic to the desire of the new government in Japan to review the realignment roadmap," further noting that ``we have not talked in terms of a time limit, but rather the need to progress as quickly as possible."

He further noted that ``modest change" on the Futenma Airbase relocation issue was a matter between Tokyo and the Okinawan government and people (who have thrice signaled acceptance of the plan).

Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama clearly does not want to be rushed on this issue; efforts to publicly push him are likely to be counterproductive. But he has also pledged to take local opinions into account and to make a final decision once his administration's review process is over.

In discussing the issue, the prime minister also noted that ``there are still numerous causes for concern in the Asia-Pacific region. The deterrence capability of U.S. forces in Okinawa is also necessary for the security of our country."

With a bit of patience, there could yet be a happy ending. The key for both sides is not to make this an issue of contention during President Obama's visit.
This bit of cautious optimism aside, there are a number of other sensitive issues that could just as easily put new strains on the alliance if not properly handled.

One centers around Prime Minister Hatoyama's apparent determination to unveil details of an alleged ``secret pact" between Japan and the United States ― one that is said to allow U.S. vessels and aircraft carrying nuclear weapons to stop in Japan.

This investigation threatens a collision between Tokyo's three non-nuclear principles and the U.S.-Japan alliance relationship that serves as the cornerstone of the U.S. commitment to Japan's defense.

While we applaud transparency, the government of the Democratic Party of Japan (DJP) needs to be fully aware of the potential consequences of this investigation if followed through to its logical conclusion.

In December 1967, then Prime Minister Sato Eisaku introduced the ``three non-nuclear principles," which pledged that Japan would not possess, manufacture, or allow the introduction of nuclear weapons into Japan.

That policy ― it was passed as a parliamentary resolution in 1971 and is not a law ― reflected Japan's deep-rooted aversion to nuclear weapons and helped Sato win the Nobel Peace Prize in 1974.

It has been a pillar of Japanese diplomacy and foreign policy ever since ― Hatoyama renewed Japan's ``firm commitment" to these principles in a speech to the United Nations Security Council just last month.

That pledge notwithstanding, for decades there have been rumors of a secret ``don't ask, don't tell" arrangement between Japan and the U.S. that allowed the U.S. to keep nuclear weapons on ships and aircraft that stopped in Japan or transited its waters.

Previous Japanese governments denied this deal existed, and it became moot in 1991 when then-President George H.W. Bush ordered the removal of all tactical nuclear weapons from deployed U.S. ships and aircraft.

Nonetheless ― and here's the rub ― the U.S. still follows a strict ``neither confirm nor deny" policy in discussing the presence of U.S. nuclear weapons anywhere to avoid precedents that could limit its flexibility or threaten operational security during periods of crisis or conflict or compromise nuclear storage facilities on U.S. territory.

As part of its ``transparent government campaign," the DPJ pledged that it would uncover the truth behind the allegations if it won the August parliamentary elections.

After taking office, Foreign Minister Okada Katsuya said his office would launch an inquiry and ``We will reveal everything we find." Fine; then what? Let's say that the Hatoyama government comes up with ``proof" that such a deal existed. What happens next?

Is the Hatoyama government then prepared to announce ``case closed" and move on or will it feel compelled to take measures to ensure that this could never happen again ― a move that would force Washington to choose between maintaining its ``neither confirm nor deny" policy or maintaining the alliance?

That might seem like a simple choice to the Japanese but it is not so easy for Washington, which has to always keep one eye on precedents and how this would affect operations and alliances elsewhere.

Ralph Cossa is president of the Pacific Forum CSIS (pacforum@hawaii.rr.com), a Honolulu-based nonprofit research institute affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Brad Glosserman is executive director of the forum.

[vector7]

* NOVEMBER 10, 2009
Japan's Mixed Signals Add to Uncertainty Over U.S. Installations
By YUKA HAYASHI in Tokyo and YOCHI J. DREAZEN in Washington
Comments
(See Corrections & Amplifications item below)

When President Barack Obama meets Japan's new prime minister in Tokyo on Friday, he will face a government that appears uncertain about how to resolve the major issue complicating ties between the two allies.

Members of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama's administration have sent mixed signals in recent weeks over the Japanese government's stance on a plan to realign U.S. forces on the remote southern island of Okinawa. Mr. Hatoyama campaigned in part on reviewing the plan, which is unpopular in Okinawa because many there want U.S. forces off the island entirely.

A crowd estimated at 21,000 people protested Sunday at Ginowan City in Okinawa and called for U.S. forces to leave, according to the rally's organizers. About 2,000 staged a protest at a U.S. air base in nearby Kadena on Saturday.

Foreign-policy experts say Messrs. Obama and Hatoyama won't be expected to resolve the issue during Friday's meeting and will instead focus on building a working relationship. But a lack of progress adds to uncertainty surrounding the U.S.-Japan relationship, they said.

About 65% of the 47,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan are in Okinawa. They are part of a force credited with improving stability in Asia and providing backing as the U.S. and Japan dealt with the former Soviet Union and North Korea.

"The prime minister needs to feel a sense of urgency and understand that the safety of the Japanese people may be compromised if the relationship with the U.S. becomes shaky," says Satoshi Morimoto, a Takushoku University professor and former defense-ministry official.

Mr. Hatoyama's Democratic Party of Japan is seeking to reopen the bilateral agreement aimed at reorganizing U.S. troops there. Washington wants Tokyo to stick with the 2006 pact that will close a helicopter base in a congested urban area called Futenma and move it to a more remote part of the island.

"We're barely on track" with the realignment plan laid out in 2006, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters in late October. "When you start falling behind, you don't fall behind by days, you start falling behind exponentially."

Local DPJ politicians want the base off the island entirely. The DPJ scored a landslide victory in August elections, ousting a conservative party that ruled Japan for over five decades.

But late last month, Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada suggested the new government might be willing to compromise, saying a move off the island is unrealistic. Mr. Hatoyama later said the decision would be his, and has said he isn't in a hurry to resolve it.

American military strategists say that the Marine bases in Okinawa help the U.S. project its power into the Far East, primarily because of the island's proximity to mainland Japan, China, Taiwan and the Korean peninsula. The strategists argue that the presence of so many armed Marines on the island has kept vital trade routes open while also serving as a deterrent of sorts to China and North Korea.

"If you think of the security issues that the U.S. and Japan are grappling with, from the Chinese military buildup to the uncertainty on the Korean peninsula, having bases on Okinawa is extremely valuable," said Nicholas Szechenyi, a Japan expert at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, a Washington think tank.

The U.S. military's presence has become increasingly unpopular within Okinawa. The rape of a 12-year-old girl by U.S. servicemen in 1995 prompted talks to close the Futenma base. The crash of a military helicopter in a college campus near Futenma in 2004 led to the 2006 agreement.

More recently, Japan's weakened economy has added to the bitterness. As a price for hosting military bases, Tokyo traditionally dished out generous public works spending to prop up Okinawa. But as Japan's overall economy began to falter in the 1990s and the government's debts piled up, Tokyo began to cut such spending.

"People in Okinawa realize the bases and the subsidies from Tokyo haven't done anything to help us," says Choukichi Kina, a member of the upper house of Parliament who calls Okinawa "the trash basket for the U.S.-Japan security alliance. We still have the highest unemployment rate and the lowest income level in all of Japan."

Mr. Szechenyi, the Japan expert, said that the dispute over Futenma carried wider risks. "If the Hatoyama government insists on pursuing this, it will open a whole Pandora's box of questions that I'm not sure they're prepared to answer."

Corrections & Amplifications

A crowd estimated at 21,000 people protested Sunday at Ginowan City in Okinawa. An earlier version of this article misstated the location of the protest.

Write to Yuka Hayashi at yuka.hayashi@wsj.com and Yochi J. Dreazen at yochi.dreazen@wsj.com

[vector7]

Japan admits secret pact: reports

November 22, 2009
Latest Japan News

AFP


Yukio Hatoyama, the leader of the DPJ .

A Japanese government team has found documents on an alleged secret pact with the United States to transport nuclear weapons through its territory, after decades of official denial, reports said on Sunday.

Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama's centre-left government launched a probe into the alleged nuclear pact and other secret agreements with the United States days after it took office in September.

The probe team reported to Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada on Friday that it had discovered documents linked to the pact from among thousands of files at the foreign ministry, the Mainichi Shimbun and Yomiuri Shimbun newspapers reported, citing unnamed ministry sources.

"Foreign minister admits 'nuclear secret pact'" declared the headline in the Mainichi Shimbun, while the Yomiuri Shimbun echoed: "Government view likely to change - 'nuclear secret pact'."

The existence of the agreement has been denied for decades by previous conservative administrations, even though US documents declassified last month showed US officials believed they had an understanding with Japan when the allies signed a new security treaty in 1960.

"The question of black or white will become clear in January. We will clear the burden of previous administrations which had insisted there was no secret pact," Okada said Saturday, the newspapers reported.

Okada will set up a committee of experts to examine the documents before announcing the government's final judgment in January whether the secret pact did indeed exist, they said.

Japan, the only nation to have suffered nuclear attacks and which has campaigned for the worldwide abolition of the ultra-destructive weapons, has had a policy of not possessing, producing or allowing nuclear weapons on its territory since 1967.

The probe team is believed to have found documents related to the records of discussions in 1960 when Japan and the United States signed a new security treaty, the newspaper reports said.

A confidential US State Department memo prepared in 1960 for then secretary of state Christian Herter said Washington had to consult Japan on the "introduction of nuclear weapons."

But it said that the United States, which has stationed troops in Japan since its defeat in World War II, could use Japanese soil "as needed" in an emergency if communist neighbour North Korea launched an attack.

In 1991, then US president George Bush announced that US vessels would no longer carry tactical atomic arms, rendering any pact with Japan allowing US nuclear-armed ships to visit obsolete.

The Japanese team is also probing other alleged pacts on a contingency plan on the Korean peninsula, allowing nuclear weapons on Japanese soil in the event of an emergency and an agreement for Japan to pay costs linked to returning the southern island of Okinawa to Japan in 1972 after US military occupation.

The United States dropped atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, killing more than 210,000 people and ending World War II.

© 2009 AFP

[vector7]

Japan: The US Marines leave, bases remain


Tags: US Marines, Politics, US-Japanese relations, Commentary, World

Ilyashenko Andrei

Photo: AFP

Nine thousand of marines are going to be redeployed from Okinawa to the bases in Guam, the Philippines and Australia. This agreement between the governments of the USA and Japan was reached on Friday. It is designed to defuse the conflict situation concerning the Futenma airbase of the US Marine Corps in Okinawa. However, the final solution of the problem, which has become one of the main topics of the Japan’s internal policy, is still a long way off.

The US military bases in Japan have long been a problem in American-Japanese relations. On the one hand, the leaders of both countries consider it as a deterrent factor for Chinese military power in the region. On the other hand, the problem is that the population of Okinawa is demanding the relocation of the Futenma base from populous cities, preferably, to somewhere off-island.

For them, the bases have long been regarded as a source of crime, dangerous incidents and noise. In 1995, three American soldiers raped a 14-year-old schoolgirl. This incident served as a pretext for the beginning of official negotiations. Then there were some accidents, like the one in 2004, when a Marines’ helicopter crashed into the building of the Okinawan International University, which prevented the officials of the two countries from soft-pedaling the issue. In fact, in the last 15 years, the US military presence in Japan became one of the most burning issues of inter-party struggle.

In 2006, the United States and the Japanese Liberal Democrats’ government agreed that the Futenma base would be relocated to a remote area of Okinawa, and 9000 of the marines will be redeployed to Guam till 2014. It was a package agreement, i.e. without solving the problem of the base, the marines’ withdrawal was postponed.

However, this did not suit the Okinawa authorities. All the rest of the Japanese prefectures strongly opposed the presence of the bases on their territory either. During parliamentary elections of 2009 the situation was used by the leaders of the opposition Democratic Party of Japan, who promised to relocate the base outside Okinawa, and possibly - outside Japan. They won the elections over conservatives from the Liberal-Democratic Party, but due to an unprecedented pressure on the part of the USA they did not revise the existing agreements. It cost the Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama his chair, but helped to avoid a dangerous precedent, when the US closest ally willfully relocates an American base from its territory. However, the issue of the troops’ withdrawal reached a deadlock.

Now the situation has somewhat changed.

On the one hand, at the beginning of the current year, the USA unveiled the new strategy according to which the brunt of the military presence is transferred from Europe to the Asia-Pacific region. According to the Pentagon, the new stationing of the Marine Corps answers the modern realities in the Asia-Pacific region, including the strengthening of the Chinese military power, the instability on the Korean Peninsula and the danger of territorial conflicts in the South China Sea.

On the other hand, the new strategic configuration requires a more close cooperation between the USA and its main ally in Asia - Japan. That is why, on the eve of the visit of the Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda the US has agreed to the withdrawal of troops without solving the problem of the Futenma base.

The refusal from this package agreement allowed the allies to cooperate in the field of cyber-security, intelligence and anti-missile defense, said the official representative of the US Ministry of Defense.

It is a gift for the Japanese government, which allows to eliminate criticism from the left wing concerning the bases, and from the right wing concerning the sluggish defense cooperation with the US. But the gift is not for free.

It was supposed earlier that Tokyo will provide 6 billion dollars for the redeployment, of which more than 2.8 billion dollars in cash and the rest in the form of loans. Since the number of contingent destined for Guam is reduced, it was decided to refuse from loans, and to raise the amount of cash to 3.1 billion dollars, taking into account the inflation. This sum includes the expenses on the equipment of joint training objects not only in Guam, but also on the islands of Tinian and Pagan, which the US and Japanese military will use together.

It seems that current arrangements suit the main critics of the Marines’ withdrawal namely such influential senators as Carl Levin, John McCain, and Jim Webb. In their letter to the US Minister of Defence Leon Panetta they were worrying about the impact of the withdrawal from Japan on the overall US strategy in the Asia-Pacific region, and also about the price of this relocation. However, the problem of closing the Futenma base in Okinawa remains. The position of the authorities and population of the Prefecture, where 70 % of the territory is occupied by the US military facilities, will continue to be a red flag for the American-Japanese relations.

[vector7]

Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2012
Two U.S. sailors arrested over rape in Japan

AFP-Jiji

Two U.S. sailors were arrested Tuesday on suspicion of raping a Japanese woman on strategically vital Okinawa, where anti-U.S. military feeling already runs high.

NHK said the alleged assault occurred before dawn Tuesday and that the two suspects are both 23 years old.

One of sailors admitted carrying out the attack, but the other has denied it, according to TV Asahi.

A spokesman for the Okinawa Prefectural Police refused to comment on the reports.

The incident has the potential to snowball, feeding in to the increasingly vociferous antibase movement.

Protests have been swelling in the prefecture over the recent deployment of 12 Osprey transport aircraft, with the plane's perceived poor safety sparking concern among residents.

Previous attacks have generated huge outpourings of anger.

The gang rape of a 12-year-old Okinawan girl by U.S. servicemen in 1995 sparked mass protests resulting in a bilateral agreement to reduce the huge U.S. military presence there.

The agreement has been bogged down for years over plans to relocate the Futenma air base to a less-crowded part of the island.

Islanders want to see the base moved out of the prefecture altogether and insist the rest of Japan should shoulder more of the burden of the U.S. presence.

Okinawa is a reluctant host to around half of the 47,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in Japan.

In September tens of thousands of people rallied against deployment of the tilt-rotor Osprey, which can take off and land like a helicopter and fly like a plane.

A number of crashes involving the aircraft sparked safety fears, but commentators say the Osprey is a proxy issue for a people who are fed up with the huge U.S. presence.

Washington sees the island as a vital strategic base in a region that has China and North Korea.



Nighttime curfew on US forces in Japan

US forces in Japan have imposed a curfew on all military personnel to help prevent crimes involving US troops.

The commander of the US forces Lieutenant General Salvatore Angelella announced the measure at a joint news conference with US Ambassador to Japan John Roos on Friday in Tokyo.

Earlier this week police arrested 2 Navy personnel for an alleged sexual assault on a Japanese woman in Okinawa, southern Japan.

Lieutenant General Angelella offered a personal apology to the woman and the people of Okinawa.

He then announced that all personnel will be banned from going out between 11 PM and 5 AM every day, and that the curfew goes into effect this evening.

The rule will also be applied to servicemen who are in Japan on temporary assignments.

The commander said this is the first time a curfew has been imposed on all members of the US forces in Japan.

He suggested that the US command will give seminars to all military personnel and civilian employees and review how leave is granted to them.

Ambassador Roos said the alleged assault has a personal impact on him because he has a 25-year-old daughter.

He stressed that the US government will cooperate with Japan to investigate the incident and help US troops regain the trust of Japanese people.

NHK - US forces in Japan to impose curfew on personnel





Sunday, November 4, 2012 at 6:28 AM
Protests in Tokyo against US Osprey aircraft

Thousands of people have rallied against American deployment of Osprey military aircraft on a southern Japanese island amid escalating anti-U.S. military sentiment following recent crimes.

TOKYO —Thousands of people have rallied against American deployment of Osprey military aircraft on a southern Japanese island amid escalating anti-U.S. military sentiment following recent crimes.

Protesters gathered Sunday at a Tokyo park demanding removal of 12 MV-22 Osprey hybrid aircraft from Okinawa. Ospreys were deployed in October despite local opposition over safety concerns following two crashes elsewhere.

They chanted, "Ospreys out! Marine Corps out!"

Anger is running high days after a U.S. airman allegedly assaulted a teenage boy on Okinawa, just two weeks after a curfew was imposed on all 52,000 U.S. troops in Japan after the arrest of two Navy sailors in the alleged rape of a local woman.

More than half of the American troops in Japan are on Okinawa. The recent incidents have inflamed tension and distrust.


U.S. airman accused of attacking Japanese teen after breaking into home

By Junko Ogura and Jethro Mullen, CNN
updated 5:55 AM EDT, Fri November 2, 2012


A file photo of the U.S. Air Base in Kadena, Okinawa, where the airman under investigation is assigned.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• NEW: "It's an understatement to say I'm very upset," U.S. ambassador says
• A U.S. airman is alleged to have broken into an apartment and hit a 13-year-old boy
• The alleged attack is "outrageous," the Japanese foreign minister says
• Two U.S. sailors were arrested last month over accusations they raped a local woman

Tokyo (CNN) -- Compounding the American military's difficulties on the Japanese island of Okinawa, a U.S. airman is under investigation over allegations he broke into a local family's home early Friday and assaulted a teenage boy before jumping off a third-floor balcony.

The incident is likely to further deepen resentment among Okinawan residents about the significant U.S. military presence on the island. The situation was already extremely delicate following the arrest last month of two U.S. sailors accused of raping a local woman.

That case prompted angry protests from Japanese officials and local residents. The U.S. military responded by imposing a nighttime curfew on its thousands of troops in the country -- a restriction the airman appears to have disobeyed Friday.

According to Okinawa police, the suspect is alleged to have broken into the family's apartment in the village of Yomitan around 1 a.m. Friday, hit a 13-year-old boy who was in bed and damaged a television set. The boy was left with an injury to his cheek.

The airman suffered "possible broken bones and internal injuries" after jumping from the apartment's balcony and has been admitted to a military hospital on the nearby U.S. Air Force base of Kadena, U.S. military officials said.


U.S. military shifting Asia focus


2008: Japanese to U.S.: Get out

Japanese Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba called the incident "outrageous," noting that it took place despite the U.S. military curfew. He said the Japanese authorities would lodge a complaint with the United States.

The U.S. ambassador to Japan, John Roos, said he was also appalled by reports of the incident.

"Let me be absolutely clear: I am very upset -- it's an understatement to say I'm very upset," he told reporters in Tokyo on Friday, expressing concern about the well-being of the Japanese boy who was allegedly attacked.

He stressed that the U.S. military forces in Japan are "undergoing a complete review of the liberty policies and other policies that will minimize, if not eliminate, any such incident in the future."

"It is incredibly unfortunate that the purported actions of a few reflect badly on thousands of young men and women here in Japan, away from their homes, that are here for the defense of Japan," he said.

American military officials on Okinawa, which lies south of the main Japanese islands, were trying to deal with the fallout from the situation.

"It is extremely regrettable when an alleged incident like this occurs," said Col. Brian McDaniel, vice commander of the 18th Wing of the U.S. Air Force, which occupies the Kadena base, the largest American military installation in the Asia-Pacific region. "We are fully cooperating with Okinawan authorities on this investigation to ensure justice is served."

Maj. Christopher Anderson, the head of public affairs for the 18th Wing, said he had met with the mayor of Yomitan on Friday.

"This isn't how we want our people to conduct themselves," he said of the airman's alleged behavior.

Japanese and U.S authorities declined to disclose details of the airman's identity Friday, other than that he was assigned to Kadena.

The issue of violent crimes by U.S. troops in Japan has divided the two countries for decades. It came to a peak in 1995 when a U.S. sailor and two U.S. Marines were convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl. Tens of thousands of Okinawans took to the streets at the time demanding that the United States leave the island.

Relations between the U.S. military and the people of Okinawa have also been strained in recent months over the U.S. Marine Corps' deployment of MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft to a base on the island. Some Okinawa residents are concerned because the Osprey has had a reputation for crashing.

The Okinawan community has long been against the presence of the U.S. military, which recently announced that thousands of Marines will be moved to a base in Guam.